Commission on Appointments

Daza v. Singson Ponente: Cruz, J.

Facts:

1. House of Representatives appointed Rep. Daza as representative of the Liberal Party in the Commission of Appointments.

2. Thereafter, 24 members of the Liberal Party resigned and joined Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) leaving Liberal Party with only 17 members. LDP had 159 members at that time.

3. The House of Representatives revised its representation in the Commission on Appointments and withdrew the seat occupied by Rep. Daza. Rep. Singzon replaced Rep. Daza, representing LDP.

Issue:

WON a political party, as stated in Sec 18 Art VI, should be registered in the COMELEC and should have political stability before it have representation in the Commission on Appointments [NO]

Held/Ratio:

1. The change in the political alliances in the House of Representatives reflected a permanent change.

2. The House of Representatives has the authority to change its representation in the Commission on Appointments to reflect at any time the changes that may transpire in the political alignments of its membership.

3. The COMELEC has also granted the petition of the LDP for registration as a political party.

4. Petition dismissed.

Coseteng v. Mitra Ponente:

Facts:

After the congressional elections of May 1987, the HOR, elected 11 out of 12 Congressmen into the Commission on Appointments. Upon nomination of the Minority Floor Leader, the House added Roque Ablan as the 12^th member of the Commission (representing coalesced minority in the House).

A year later, the LDP was organized as the new majority party (w/158 out 202 members from the House). Thus, the House reorganized the Commission on Appointments in order to ensure party representation.

Petitioner Coseteng requested Speaker Mitra to appoint her as a member of the Commission of Appointments and HRET. Said request was endorsed by 9 other Congressmen.

The reorganization of the Commission took place as scheduled (the only change being the replacement of Daza w/

Singson). As a result, Coseteng and her party KAIBA filed this petition for extraordinary legal writs (w/c is considered a petition for quo warranto and injunction) praying this Court declare null and void the election of several

Congressmen into the Commission. Her action is based on the theory that their election violated the constitutional mandate of proportional representation because of the ff. reasons:

1) The LDP is only entitled to 9 seats out of 12 (they were given 10)

2) The members representing the political parties had to be nominated by their respective parties

3) Nomination and election of Verano-Yap and Ablan as representatives of the minority are invalid because they were neither nominated nor elected by such party.

Issue/Held/Ratio:

(1) WON the members of the Commission of Appointments were chosen on the basis of proportional representation.

Sub issue: WON this is a political question Yes. The petition is DISMISSED.

(2) WON this is a political question

This is NOT a political question and can still be decided upon by the Court under the expanded jurisdiction provided by Article 8, Sec. 1 of the Constitution.

(3) WON the members of the Commission of Appointments were chosen on the basis of proportional representation.

Pertinent in this case is Article 6, Sec. 18 of the Constitution:

There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, 12 Senators, and 12 Members of the HOR elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties or organizations registered under the party list system represented therein. XXXXX

The ruling LDP comprises 80% of the House. 80% of 12 members of the Commission would equal to 9.6 members (rounded off to 10). The remaining 2 seats are apportioned to 1) LP, the next highest party in the Coalesced Minority, and 2) KBL, as the principal opposition party. Such apportionment was done on the basis of political representation.

The other political parties such as petitioner‘s KAIBA are bound by the majority‘s choices. Even if it were considered as an opposition party, it certainly isn‘t the PRINCIPAL as it only represents .4% of House membership (Coseteng is the sole member of KAIBA). It should be noted that to be able to claim proportional membership in the Commission, the political party should represent at least 8.4% of the House membership.

Additionally: all the Commission members were properly nominated and elected under Article 6, Sec. 18 of the Constitution.

Guinggona v. Gonzales Ponente:

Facts:

The Constitution (sec 18, Art VI) created a Commission of Appointments, of whose 12 seats for each house of legislature must be proportioned among the political parties thereof.

The Senate‘s composition after the 1992 Elections were as such:

LDP – 15

NPC – 5

LAKAS-NUCD – 3

LP-PDP-LABAN – 1

The Senate promulgated this formula to distribute the seats amongst themselves:

# of senators of a political party x 12 seats total # of senators elected

Following this formula, this is how the distribution of the seats looks like:

Political Party/Coalition

Membership Seat s

LDP 15 7.5

NPC 5 2.5

LAKAS-NUCD 3 1.5

LP-PDP-LABAN 1 .5

The problem started when Sen. Romulo, the Majority Floor Leader, submitted 8 names to represent LDP. Sen.

Guingona, the Minority Floor Leader, and Sen. Osmeña (the gay one) immediately objected to the eighth submission.

To resolve the impasse, Sen. Tolentino suggested that the LDP have 8 seats, both NPC and LAKAS each have 2, and LP coalition have 1. This temporary arrangement, inspite of the vehement objections of Sen. Guingona and Sen.

Osmeña, was approved.

Sen. Guingona filed a petition to the Commission of Appointments for prohibiting the membership of Sen. Romulo as the 8^th senator of LDP and Sen. Tañada as the sole senator of LP on the grounds that the Tolentino compromise was in violation of the rule of proportional representation accorded by the Constitution (not mentioned how COA resolved this).

The compromise gave an additional fraction of seat (and thus vote) to both LDP and LP and took away a fraction of seat/vote from both NPC and LAKAS.

Issue/Held/Ratio:

WON the seat held by Sens. Romulo and Tañada are constitutional

No. The formula provided by the Senate is the best manner of application in implementing sec 18, Art VI of the Constitution. The problem though is what can be done of the fractional seat. The compromise seems to violate the Constitution since it therefore doesn‘t make the representation of the Senate in COA proportional. A party gains a seat while another loses one.

The decision held in Tañada v. Cuenco (a fractional seat was given to Tañada) may not be used in this case. In that case (Tañada v. Cuenco) there were only two parties in the Senate and the minority party has only one Senator in it (meaning out of the 24 seats of the Senate 23 were from the majority and 1 was from the minority). In such a case, Tañada was given the extra seat since he alone represents the whole minority bloc. The case is different in this case where there are more than one alternative party. Proportional representation is made so as to place a check on the majority party and maintain the balance of power. In light of this, no party can claim more than what it is entitled to, more especially the majority party.

In Philippine jurisprudence, a party/coalition must have two or more Senators to automatically have at least one seat in the representatives of the Senate in the Commission of Appointments. This has been established in Coseteng v.

Mitra. This thereby automatically disqualifies Tañada. The LP need not worry since LP is still represented in the COA because Enrile, an LP member of the House has been appointed to the Commission. The LP also has the option to form a coalition w/ other Senate parties to gain a seat in the COA.

The Senate need not appoint exactly 12 Senators to the COA. What is required is that the COA has at least 13 members (including the ex officio chairperson, so minus the chairperson, only 12 is needed) for it to function. This is because sec. 19, Art VI of the Constitution states that the COA may be called into session by 13 of its members.

Now, the Rules of the COA states that there must be at least 4 members from each House for the Commission to work. Thus, insofar as the parties are proportionally represented, it doesn‘t matter if the Senate only appoints 8 members as long as the House can appoint (following the same proportional rule) 4 members; or that the Senate only appoints 6 members so long as the House can appoint 6 also.

The seat of Sen. Romulo and Sen. Tañada is therefore invalidated, the former because it disturbs the proportionality of the representation in COA and the latter because his party/coalition did not garner more than two seats.